[TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: Why would Jesus have to come with the human tendency to sin?   DavidM: Because those he came to save have a tendency to sin.  Jesus had to enter in through the door of the flesh.    jt: Yes but he did not have to enter through a door of "sinful flesh" to reverse what had taken place in the garden.   DM: We know how we can walk because he gave us his perfect example.  If he was some alien instead, then how he lived was only for him and not for us.    jt: He was some "alien" in spite of taking on an outward appearance like us. He was rejected even by his own and it was said that "Never a man spake like this man"  Because of his "otherness" he was crucified.   DM: On the other hand, because I know that he was made like me, then the life he lived is the life that I can live.  He condemned sin in the flesh for me.   jt: Sin in the flesh and our fleshly sin natures were judged at Calvary having already been condemned by the law. But this is not helpful to you and me unless we agree with God and condemn it in ourselves and lay it down in our own lives.   Judy wrote: Jesus the second Adam did not have Romans 7:17 type sin indwelling him either for if he had he would have been ineligible as a sacrifice for he would not have been a "spotless Lamb"   DavidM: The Rabbi's did not perform any internal inspections on the Passover lambs. They only looked on the outside of the lamb.  The term "spotless" refers to no black hairs found on the body of a white lamb.  Jesus qualified just fine as the spotless lamb of God because he never sinned.  The frailty of his body of flesh did not disqualify him.   jt: He didn't have to perform the act itself - if he had sin indwelling his flesh like us there would have been a breach with God and he would have needed a sacrifice to cover himself.   Judy wrote: > I used to believe that Romans 7 described the unregenerate man but have since learned that Paul had been born of the Spirit (or born again) for at least 20yrs when he wrote this.   DavidM: The use of present tense does not mean that he was describing his present sinful life of bondage under the law.  He was using a literary device known as the historical present tense.  It is a way of bringing the reader into a vivid understanding of what is being presented.  People do this often.  They might speak about their day yesterday when they went to the store by saying in present tense, "I see this cashier and I say..."  We know that Paul was not talking about his present life in Romans 7 because he sets it all up as being about when we were in the flesh under the law (Rom. 7:5).   jt: He is talking about his present life David. The whole of Romans 7 addresses the flesh vs Spirit.  He speaks of the flesh as a husband we are married to and if we take on Christ while still married to the flesh we are committing spiritual adultery (making us an adulteress) rather than the pure and holy bride of Christ.  Jesus did not die to our flesh for us, this is a choice we must make daily (to lay it down) and this is what Romans 7 addresses.   Judy wrote: The book of Romans is written to believers at Rome and Paul describes his own walk here.   DavidM: No, he describes his walk when he was in the flesh and under the law (Rom. 7:1-13).  Don't ignore the entire context of Romans, leading believers to understand holiness that exists apart from the works of the law.   jt: I thought Paul wrote "forgetting what lies behind"  Why would he drag all of that up 20yrs after he had been called to the Ministry. For what purpose?  Isn't he the one who wrote the Corinthians that he concerned himself with nothing  amongst them but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?   Judy wrote: > He worked out his own salvation with fear and trembling and wrote that he had NOT yet attained but he pressed on Phil 3:10-14.   DavidM: Rightly divide the Word, Judy.  Phil. 3:10 says that he is talking about the RESURRECTION in this passage.  Paul had not yet attained to the Resurrection.  Read Phil. 3:15 and you will see that Paul calls himself perfect.  In verse 12 he had said that he was not perfect.  This was concerning the resurrection.  Three verses later in verse 15 he calls himself perfect.  This is in regards to his morality and walk in Christ.   jt: This is one time when it is beneficial to look at the Gk Word in Strongs. There are at least three different words for "attain" in these scriptures David - and why would Paul be concerned about attaining to the Resurrection of the dead if all of him had been assumed in Christ already the way Bill et al. are teaching?  This point is probably worth a post by itself.   Judy wrote: > Paul has been known to miss it. He called the High Priest a "whited sepulchre" and had to apologize for it;   DavidM: This was not a sin along the lines of Romans 7.  Paul did not apologize, but  simply say that if he had known he was the high priest, he would not have talked to him that way.  In other words, the man was not acting like a high riest and deserved what was said to him.  Even the Pharisees in this passage said that they could find no wrong in him.   jt: It was the same thing Paul broke God's Law in Ex 22:28 which says "You shall not revile God or curse the ruler of God's people" so he was not only violating God's Moral Law, he was also breaking the Law of Christ which says that vengeance belongs to God and that we are to bless our enemies rather than curse them. **Incidentally this incident illustrates the difference between Jesus and the rest of humanity because He called the Pharisees and Saducees both hypocrites and whited sepulchres (see Matt 23:27).  However, because he was not prone to judging after the flesh like the rest of us, for Him this was not sin ie: "He will not judge by what His eyes see, not make a decision by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he will judge the poor and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth." (Isaiah 11:3).   Judy wrote: > he also got into a fritz with Barnabus over John Mark.   DavidM: Nothing wrong with this disagreement about whether their apostolic ministry trip should include John Mark. The Scriptures tell us that Paul and Silas went "being recommended by the brethren" which is suggestive that Paul was in the right concerning this dispute.   jt: Doesn't matter who we think to be "in the right" Strife is also a work of the flesh and is as bad in God's eyesight as stealing and adultery, in fact it is listed with them (Gal 5:20)   Judy wrote: > For him it was a learning process like it is for us.   DavidM: And so it was for Jesus too... Hebrews 5:8-9 (8) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; (9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;   jt: How would you define His suffering David?  Being of little or no esteem, despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief from whom most men hid their faces?   Judy wrote: > However, I don't see Jesus "missing it" at all You are right.  Jesus never sinned. > He took our likeness upon himself but this likeness involved the limitations of human flesh in outward form only   DavidM: The following passage sounds like more than just outward likeness: Hebrews 5:7 (7) Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Jesus sounds quite human in this passage, don't you think?  Crying.  Tears. Fear.  When God created man in his image, was it only in outward form?  If not, then why thrust this restriction on God when he was made in man's image?   jt: No "God's image" was never ever "outward form" because God is a Spirit (John 4:24) His image is his nature and character and this is what A&E lost in the garden.   Grace and Peace, judyt